Standing Committee D

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Licensing Bill [Lords]

Clause 3 - Licensing authorities

Amendment proposed [3 April]: No. 59, in 
clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 34 to 38 and insert— 
 '(a) the licensing justices, as defined in section 2 of the Licensing Act (1964) (c.26),'.—[Mr. Moss.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Joe Benton: I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 60, in 
clause 3, page 2, leave out line 40.
 Amendment No. 61, in 
clause 3, page 2, leave out line 41.
 Amendment No. 64, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert— 
 '( ) The University of Cambridge,'.
 Amendment No. 62, in 
clause 7, page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (2).
 Amendment No. 63, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 33, leave out subsection (10).

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to you, Mr. Benton, for reminding the Committee of where we had reached at the end of our sitting on Thursday. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) had alerted me to that fact a moment ago. We were discussing whether the licensing authorities should be those bodies and people listed under subsection (1). My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) suggested that we should at least consider whether there was justification in moving from licensing justices being the licensing authority for liquor licensing to being the authority for all licensing purposes as set out under amendment No. 59. If I have misinterpreted the amendment, perhaps my hon. Friend will correct me.
 I want to concentrate on the other amendments in the group. They could be considered to be contradictory in spirit. Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 would remove paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection 1, which refer to the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple and the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple. Amendment No. 64 would make the university of Cambridge a licensing authority. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire did not table them for their intrinsic merit. He was looking for a philosophy from the Government about which bodies they want to be liquor-licensing authorities. 
 There has been no great difficulty, certainly not in my constituency, with liquor licensing resting with licensing magistrates. Will the Minister explain why those responsibilities are to be transferred to local authorities, which are elected by the local residents, yet the Government are proposing the inclusion of two people who are not elected by local residents? Indeed, so individual are they that further on in the Bill it becomes impossible for them to appoint a sub-committee. A sub-committee cannot be appointed from a committee of one. That is my interpretation of amendment No. 62.

Mark Field: The Bill will extend the historical privileges that apply to the City of London. Both the Middle and Inner Temples are partly in the city of Westminster and, for historical reasons, licensing matters have rested with the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple. I do not want to speak on behalf of the Government; I am sure that the Minister has words of wisdom to pass on to us. Rather than interfere with that process, I suppose that the Government thought it sensible to maintain the long-standing privileges of the City of London.

Andrew Turner: I must confess that I like that argument. If the Government wish to maintain historic privileges and traditions, I am all for that. If the amendment were subjected to a Division, I would be happy to vote against my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire who wants the removal of the two paragraphs. However, I support strongly his amendment No. 64 to include the university of Cambridge. We should undoubtedly maintain some of the historical privileges of that secondary institution, but why does the Minister propose the retention of some historical privileges and traditions but not others? What is wrong with the Universities (Wine Licences) Act 1743, for example? What do the Government so dislike about that Act to make them repeal its provisions in this Bill?
 What is wrong with retaining the powers of the university of Cambridge? Is the Government's decision something to do with the cross-border nature of the university? Some of its colleges are outside the boundary of the city, therefore, exactly the same geographical considerations apply as to the Inner and Middle Temples. The university is a cross-boundary institution and it is not convenient for licensing power to rest with either one local authority in the more conventional meaning of that word, or another. Will the Minister explain? 
 I am happy to go down either the road of removing all historical privileges and traditions or of retaining them, although I would be happier to retain them. I cannot see why the Minister is riding two bicycles in opposite directions in this clause.

Jim Knight: Or him.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman says ''Or him'' referring to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, but my hon. Friend is riding two bicycles because he is trying to draw information out of the Minister.

Kim Howells: That was quick. It is a great pleasure to see you chairing this Committee on a Tuesday morning, Mr. Benton.
 Amendment No. 59 is similar to one moved on Report and on Third Reading in another place which was debated extensively. The subject is central to the modernising elements of the Bill. Schedule 7 to the Bill repeals the Licensing Act 1964, so amendment No. 59 cannot stand alone—there would no longer be a section 2 of the 1964 Act and no definition of what licensing justices are or the extent of their jurisdiction. Notwithstanding those flaws, Amendment No. 59 would maintain the licensing justices as the licensing authority for the sale of alcohol by retail. It would transfer control of entertainment and late night refreshment to the licensing justices from the local authorities and duties in respect of registered members clubs—which will be replaced in the Bill by qualifying clubs—from the magistrates courts. 
 The amendment does not propose the status quo, as has been suggested, but wholesale change, which is unjustifiable. The Bill deals with six existing licensing regimes, not only with alcohol licensing. Integrating those regimes is a key way of reducing red tape. Five of the regimes—public entertainment, cinema, theatre, night cafes and late-night refreshment—are under the control of local authorities and only alcohol is controlled by the licensing justices. It does not make sense to transfer five licensing regimes to the justices, when integration could be achieved by bringing one under the control of the local authorities. 
 There is also a common misunderstanding about the status of the licensing justices, which do not sit as a magistrates court. They were established by statute as an administrative committee elected by the magistrates in the relevant petty sessions area. They are not bound by the normal rules of evidence and they are technically free to receive and consider hearsay evidence and petitions. I make those points to stress that they are administrative not judicial bodies, although in certain circumstances they will have a quasi-judicial quality. If Parliament had wanted a judicial process, it would have given the job to magistrates courts, not licensing justices.

Mark Field: In fairness to the Minister, I have served on a London local authority and was on the licensing committee for some time and there is a quasi-judicial element to licensing within local authorities—not least in the fact that votes on such matters cannot be whipped. The same, of course, applies to planning. It is a little disingenuous to suggest that there is no sense of licensing committees being quasi-judicial. Indeed, legal officers involved with such committees make it clear that the role of the council is quasi-judicial and that the committees are therefore not to be persuaded by party-political considerations.

Kim Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expanding on that point, which is important.
 Once it is accepted that licensing is a regulatory and administrative process undertaken in the interests of the community, the question arises of which body should most appropriately represent those interests. 
 Licensing justices are accountable only to the magistrates that elect them to the licensing committee and the higher courts. That cannot be said to provide democratic accountability to the community. I stress the words ''democratic accountability'' because administrative processes should be in the hands of the democratically elected representatives of the local electorate. Regulatory processes should be entrusted to those best placed to undertake, on an informed basis, the balancing exercise of deciding what is in the wider community interest in respect of licensing decisions. 
 Indeed, if the licensing authority does its job badly, it should be possible for local people to give the authority an electoral kick, if that is justified. Licensing justices are elected by magistrates and at the moment only they can deliver such kicks. It is not just the Government who have drawn such conclusions about the scope for reducing red tape and the principle of accountability. The Better Regulation Task Force, acting on behalf of industry, also recommended to the Government that the local authorities should have that role in future. 
 Now that I have established the points of practicality and principle that justify the approach taken in the Bill, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will not press amendment No. 59 to a vote. Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 would remove the ability of the Inner and Middle Temples to act as licensing authorities. Those bodies are not arcane institutions from which privilege should be stripped. The Committee may be unaware that they are local authorities in their own right. I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) is listening, because I have sought special advice on the subject. The university of Cambridge is not a local authority; it was granted a privilege by royal charter to sell wine within the boundaries of the university. The Temples and the university are very different organisations in that sense. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. 
 To those of us who represent areas of the country that are not like that represented by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), or like the ancient university of Cambridge, the system seems archaic. The Bill would establish the local authority as the licensing authority and given that the Temples have shown that they wish to continue in their role as licensing authorities and that the other London local authorities are in agreement—that is important—it makes complete sense for them to act in that way. I hope that the amendments will therefore be withdrawn. 
 On amendment No. 64, the vice-chancellor of Cambridge university, through his ability to grant licences to sell wine at the university, enjoys a privilege that cannot be justified in modern times. His authority is based on an ancient charter. Once again, what of proper democratic accountability? It is extremely difficult to imagine any justification for allowing a university to act as a licensing authority, other than some kind of over-nostalgic harking back to traditions that are of neither use nor ornament today. I hope that that amendment, too, will be withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: Part of the basis for tabling the amendment and speaking to it in the way that I did and the justification for the major switch from licensing justices to local authorities, was the argument that was in the White Paper and that the Government have been using for the past couple of years—that a considerable saving of £1.9 billion justifies a fundamental shift. The Minister has not even begun to deal with that matter.

Kim Howells: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have published a good deal of information, although I sense from his contributions that he does not accept that. He quoted a particular pub chain, which I guessed was Stuart Neame's—the hon. Gentleman indicates that his lips are sealed. I have been living this Bill for too long and I recognise the hand of Stuart Neame when I see it. He led the ''Kill the Bill'' the campaign, although he is not a one-off, as Tim Martin of JD Wetherspoon also worked with him on that campaign. Stuart Neame has a particular view on the Bill and, on a whim, has changed his estimated costings by as much as 900 per cent., depending on which argument he uses at any given time. I do not accept that Mr. Neame's views are typical of the licensed trade.
 The Government conducted a survey 10 times the size of that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire quoted in Committee and arrived at very different conclusions. The evidence that we have provided in the impact assessment is convincing—I am convinced by it and I am the most sceptical person in the world on this matter.

Malcolm Moss: It seems strange that a business man, who shall remain nameless but who has a chain of about 300 pubs, arrives at a different figure from those of the authors of the White Paper and the impact assessment, who used a sample of about 360 pubs. The magnitude in difference of outcome is in the order of a factor of four. Is the Minister saying that the particular individual who should remain nameless does not know his business? We are talking about the costs involved for his business. Does the Minister care to repeat—what I think I heard him say—that he stands by the figures in the White Paper?

Kim Howells: Yes, I have no difficulty in standing by those figures. The hon. Gentleman would be ill advised to accept the word of one owner of a chain of pubs and to disregard the evidence that has been given on many occasions by the great majority of much larger chains. He should carefully consider the agenda that that individual might have on the Bill and on licensing policy in general. The operation of licensing by magistrates requires a hearing in almost every single case. Hearings will be vastly reduced under the new system and should be far less of a burden on the licensed trade in general. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is properly trying to make an argument and he says that not one of the licensees to whom he has spoken is in favour of the Bill's changes. I understand his hon. Friends have said much the same thing.
 Prior to the White Paper's publication, a review of licensing law was conducted in close consultation with the licensed trade and many others. Many licensees 
 pointed to failures with the current system, including licensing justices, inflexibility and the multitude of permissions that were required across lots of licensing regimes. It is uncanny that the view has changed since the White Paper was published: the problem was in the licensing regime, but that is now likely to be the local authorities. I do not blame the licensing business for having done that: it wants to make its life as easy and smooth as possible. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire must be circumspect about some of the results that he has seen. 
 The Committee is doing a proper thing, and I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for his honest and forthright response, and for the fact that we now have it on the record that he believes that there will be £1.9 billion of savings as a result of this change. We will look carefully at results from this sector of the industry in the future to ensure that his assessment was correct.
 I began my remarks by saying that this was a probing amendment that attempts to get the Government to justify this substantial shift. Although the local authorities have welcomed it in some respects, there are already mutterings from the Local Government Association that it is all very well lumbering authorities with additional responsibilities, but if they do not have the resources to meet them they will find things extremely difficult. Certain councils can see problems: if the resources do not match the responsibilities, council tax will have to go up yet again, as it is the only means of financing extra work and bureaucracy. 
 In view of the Minister's comments, I shall withdraw the amendment. There is some inconsistency in the listing that the Government have used in the clause. However, I accept that if local authorities are going to be the main source of licensing permissions in the future, the university of Cambridge does not fit into that pattern, despite the fact that it has an ancient right. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Kim Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in
clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert 'or'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment Nos. 45 and 6. 
 Amendment No. 140, in 
clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert— 
 '(a) to maintain a national register of personal licenses granted under Part 6 of this Act, and'.
 Amendment No. 99, in 
clause 4, page 3, line 10, after 'Act', insert— 
 '( ) to act as licensing authority for premises licences where the applicant or owner of the premises is the licensing authority for the area in which the premises are situate,'.
 Clause 4 stand part. 
 Government amendment No. 25. 
 Clause 110 stand part. 
 Government amendments Nos. 26 to 28. 
 Amendment No. 108, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 7, after 'authority', insert 
 'other than the Central Authority'.
 Amendment No. 109, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 18, at end insert— 
 '(3A) Before determining its policy the Central Authority must consult— 
 (a) the Secretary of State for the Home Department; 
 (b) such persons as represent— 
 (i) chief officers of police, 
 (ii) chief fire officers, 
 (iii) holders of premises licences, and 
 (iv) holders of club premises certificates, and 
 (c) holders of personal licences'.
 Amendment No. 92, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 18, at end insert— 
 '(3B) Before the licensing policy of the Central Authority shall take effect its licensing statement shall be laid before each House of Parliament for twenty-eight days and may be referred back to the authority for further consideration by resolution of either House.'.

Kim Howells: The Committee is now dealing with another area in which well meaning but misguided defeats were inflicted on the Government in another place. This group of amendments overturns those defeats and restores the original drafting of the Bill. However, I reassure those on the Opposition Benches that their handiwork in another place was not entirely in vain: it has prompted the Government and their key partners, including the industry, the local authorities and the police, to accelerate their work to honour the White Paper commitment to set up a national database.
 Before I proceed, I will try to clarify for the benefit of the Committee the difference between a national database and a central licensing authority. The distinction is crucial, and I am sorry that, for whatever reason, it was not grasped in its entirety by some of those in another place. We must discuss that significant distinction. 
 The White Paper stated: 
''To enable licensing authorities and the police to check readily the validity of licences and the licensee's history they will probably need to support a national database. It may be possible to include on a single national database details of personal licences, premises licences, punishments and sanctions imposed, door supervisor registrations and Home Office guidance.''
 The Government will honour that commitment, and I shall say more about that in a moment. 
 It is important to understand that setting up a national database is not the same as setting up a new statutory body—the central licensing authority—which would be the effect of the Opposition amendments made in another place. The database refers to the development of an electronic system that allows the police, licensing authorities and other responsible authorities to exchange information easily and freely, to allow people to apply for 
 licences online and facilitate the update of their details—for example, a variation in the supervisor of a designated premises. That would further reduce bureaucracy. 
 This is a database, not a new body corporate entrusted with statutory functions. Once the Committee understands that important distinction, the argument in favour of a central licensing authority would tend to evaporate. The simple fact is that no one—not the industry, the police, or the local authorities—wants a central licensing authority. It is rather like the great aunt at the party: it seemed like a good idea to invite her, but as soon as she turned up with that bottle of flat dandelion and burdock everyone started secretly praying for her to leave.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister has just said that the local authorities do not want a central authority. I do not know when he last met the LGA, but I met it last week and I was told that it does want a central licensing authority.

Kim Howells: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman tells us is true, but I can only tell him what we know. Perhaps that says something about the diplomatic skills of the LGA—I think we could learn a lot from it.
 We would gain nothing from having such an authority, and it would certainly add to the bureaucracy, cost and delay. The public, most of whom are eagerly awaiting our reforms, are unlikely to react well to delays when our only lame excuse is that we must set up a central licensing authority. Who wants or needs another arm of Government to carry out what should be a relatively simple administrative process? I must confess that I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of such a thing, given that he is a member of the Conservative party. I know that the Conservatives are great friends of the Musicians Union and other trade unions, but they seem to want to extend the machinery of the state and set up another quango. One wonders what happened to the bonfire of the quangos. There would be costs associated with such a body, for which there would be no justification. 
 Having said that, I must add that there is much merit in a national database, which is why the Bill provides a framework within which it could be developed. The Government are totally committed to working with partners to set up such a system.

Nick Harvey: I have listened to what the Minister said, and his general line of argument—that a database would be adequate, but a central authority might be gilding the lily—is persuasive. He said that the Bill provided the framework for the establishment of the database. Could he guide me to the part of the Bill that provides for that? The matter of who has access to the register, and in what circumstances, is important for data protection, so the database ought to be on a statutory footing.

Kim Howells: We are working on the collection of data; a working party is currently looking at the best way of setting it up. The LGA is a partner on that working party, so I am surprised that it told the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that it
 opposed the idea of the database, but not the authority.
 On the matter raised by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), I understand that clause 9(6) is the relevant part of the Bill. 
 It is important to recognise that we live in a world of practical considerations and none of us should be under any misapprehension about the complexity or magnitude of the work involved, especially considering that the measures would need to join up the licensing functions of around 410 authorities. There is still no extant example of a joined-up system of any significance covering every local authority in England and Wales. If we are to take maximum advantage of the opportunities to minimise costs and burdens through electronic service delivery, the situation is further complicated. Work has started, however, on the central database; we are building on the experience of others in the sector—for example, on the local government planning portal and the project to integrate local land and property gazetteers. 
 It is true that the national database will not be up and running before the beginning of the transition period, which is why we have identified a separate project on data standards that we will be driving forward in the run-up to the first appointed day. The aim of that project will be to ensure that all licensing authorities record the same information in the same way to facilitate the migration of data to the new system when it has been put in place. In doing that, we will encourage the full adoption of Government interoperability and metadata standards. 
 We have received wholehearted support for that approach. It is the right one, because it allows for the right system to be set up according to the appropriate time scales, without the nightmares that seem to have afflicted other Government IT projects. Problems that seemed to start when the Opposition were in power have certainly continued, but we have made huge efforts to overcome them. 
 What will happen before the national database has been set up? We have drafted the Bill to allow for a simple system based on effective communication between licensing authorities, which can be up and running from the date of Royal Assent, and for a central register to be developed in due course when the experience and technology is in place. I am confident that the local system will work well up to that point. The administrative burden on the licensing authority will be small. The licence holder will be given a duty to notify the licensing authority of a change in his or her address, as well as other relevant details such as convictions for relevant or foreign offences. It will not be a case of the licensing authority having to track down the licence holder. 
 We expect approximately 155,000 applications for personal licences during the transition period. Although I recognise that the calculation will not be this simple, that averages out as just a shade fewer than 400 applications per licensing authority. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster told us, the situation will be more intense, and there will be more applications, in some areas than in others. 
 Given that the vast majority of applications will be dealt with administratively, we do not think that they will be overly burdensome. Similarly, we expect there to be a turnover of roughly 6,500 personal licences annually, which averages out at about 15 or so licences per licensing authority. It should be within the capacity of even the least outstanding licensing authority to manage a task of that magnitude. 
 The position we set out in the Bill is sensible and pragmatic. It allows for the development of a central register in due course, without delaying the commencement of the new arrangements unnecessarily. It does not provide for a central licensing authority, largely because that would require the unnecessary creation of a new statutory body for little added value. It makes sense to return to that pragmatic position, which has been reinforced by my commitment today to honour our White Paper promise to set up a national database. We will come good on that promise and in the light of that commitment I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 4 should not stand part of the Bill. 
 In view of what I have said, it should be clear that the Government agree with the sentiment behind amendment No. 140, which would require the Government to maintain a national register for personal licences. However, I cannot accept the amendment. Some of our stakeholders have indicated—in certain cases, firmly—that they would like to see the national database reflect the policy set out in the White Paper, and cover all aspects of licensing. The police and the LGA are of that view. Some in the industry wish the scope to be restricted to personal licences, and discussion on that continues. Amendment No. 140 would immediately impose a restriction on the database as it would relate only to personal licences, which would frustrate our intention to create a truly national database relating to all forms of authorisation.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister said that originally, before a new clause 4 was moved in the other place, there was provision in the Bill for the design and creation of a central register. Where exactly in the previous draft of the Bill was that provision?

Kim Howells: In the previous Bill?

Malcolm Moss: Yes, in the Bill as presented to the Lords.

Kim Howells: I do not have a copy of that draft of the Bill with me, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly provide an answer in writing, if he likes.
 Given the firm commitment that I have given to set up a database, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. Amendments Nos. 99, 108, 92 and 109 would be dependent on the retention of the central licensing authority in the Bill. [Interruption.] I have just got the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. Clause 9(6) was part of the original Bill, as was clause 9(7). I hope that in the light of our debate, the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mark Field: I thank the Minister for his comments. I will leave it to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to
 determine whether we are satisfied with the proposed changes. It seems that the debate in the other place was sensible, given the grave concerns that were expressed. I am pleased that the Minister felt able to take on board a number of the issues raised then.
 I would like to concentrate on a relatively small factor that applies to several parts of the Bill—the transitional arrangements, to which the Minister briefly referred. One of the Opposition's concerns is that a rushed through transitional arrangement might lead to chaos. Although there may be only an average of 15 licence applications per authority, a lot of those will come through at the 11th hour, in the last few days of the transitional arrangements. There could be grave concerns about how easily the system will continue to operate. 
 It would cause great problems if there were logjams of licences, particularly in areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. I suspect that in his constituency, many licence applications are made for relatively short times, such as during Cowes week and in the summer, given the importance of the tourist trade there. If the transitional period is too short there may well be utter chaos for months, both before the end of that period and when the new system is supposed to operate. 
 Clause 55, on fees, is central to that, but I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that we will have when we consider that clause—and I am sure that you would not allow me to, Mr. Benton. However, there is a grave concern that the fee structure proposed is far too inflexible. The real risk is that residents and businesses will suffer if there is an overly inflexible system of fees set on a centralised basis, which does not take account of local circumstances in any way. I am just highlighting our concerns about the transitional arrangements, in relation to the amendments.

Nick Harvey: The Minister said that he thought that the other place had got it wrong when it put the formula into the Bill, and I think that he was right. The idea that a central licensing authority should grant personal licences does not bear much examination. The advantage of dealing with licensing at local level is that if the applicant has, shall we say, a colourful past, it is more likely that the local licensing authority will have some insight into that than a central licensing authority would. Therefore, the House of Lords went too far by suggesting that a central authority should be the licensing body.
 The Minister repeated his commitment to a national database. That is welcome, and the practical arrangements he described for how it would work are sensible. My concern is that although the Bill provides that such a register can be established, which is welcome—the Minister drew our attention to clause 9(6) and (7)—it does not go into much detail about what the statutory footing of that register would be. 
 It is not so much the administration of the register that I am concerned about. We should not overstate the scale of the task. The Minister said that 155,000 
 personal licences are likely to be sought. That is not a huge number in data processing terms: hon. Members' constituency agents routinely process electoral records for about 75,000 voters. I am more concerned about the legal footing. Who will have access to the register? The Minister said that the police and other responsible bodies would. Will the magistrates, when they are hearing appeals and so forth, have ready access to it? Such issues would bear being fleshed out in more detail—if not in primary legislation, at least by order—because they will become quite sensitive from time to time, when people are caught up in the middle of them. 
 There has been a tendency over the past 20 years or more for legislation to become minimalist, and for Bills to say, ''The Minister can do what he likes, when he likes and how he likes, and the details can be filled in later.'' I have no doubt that come the great day of the Liberal Democrat revolution, civil servants will impress upon us the merits of that approach as well. However, on this occasion there should be more detail about what the central register is for, who has access to it and in what circumstances. 
 The formula that I resorted to in amendment No. 140, which would keep some central body for maintaining the register, might be unnecessary. The body that would keep the register would be much smaller than the one granting licences, and this process does not look as if it will cost a great deal, so that is not an important issue. However, it would be a good idea to nail down how the database would operate and who would have access to it. I readily concede that it might not be necessary to have a central authority—a body corporate—to do that, but we need more detail on this point.

John Grogan: I rise to support the Government amendments. The Minister made a powerful case for a database. There has been a change in emphasis since the debate in the other place. That debate has made a difference: the Government are thinking again.
 I chaired a meeting of the all-party beer group, which assessed some of the discussions in the House of Lords, in particular this issue. The meeting involved the police and the Local Government Association as well as the industry. They agreed to make a joint approach to the Department in favour of a national database, particularly for personal licences. 
 The case for a database for personal licences is stronger than it is for premises licences. Local authorities know the premises licences in their area. However, a personal licensee may move around the country five or six times in the course of their career. 
 I hope that this work, which is led by the LGA, will make rapid progress. A central licensing authority would be unnecessarily burdensome. As I have a majority of just 2,000, I am always on the lookout for what I might do if I lost my seat and being chairman of a national licensing authority has a certain appeal. The authority would be unnecessarily burdensome, however. The database is the key. 
 With regard to later amendments, the idea of setting up a committee of the police, the local authorities and 
 the industry to try to find a way forward is a model that might be followed in other areas.

Andrew Turner: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 99, 108 and 109, but before I do so I want the Minister to examine what may happen in small authorities where the licensee or the applicant is well known—as is likely—to many, if not all, members of the licensing committee. I am not attracted by the notion of large central authorities. Indeed, for the most part, I welcome the argument against having a central licensing authority. There must be an arrangement, however, for those areas where the applicant is well known. Similarly, there must be an arrangement for premises licences when the applicant is the licensing authority. That one should not be judge in his own court is a well-understood judicial principle and I see no reason why it should not apply under the Bill. If the licensing authority also owns and controls the premises, surely it is important that an alternative authority issues the licences.

Kevan Jones: Is it not the case at present that local authorities can give themselves planning permission on land that they own?

Andrew Turner: It is indeed. It is one of the greatest objections that many members of the public have to the planning permission system. I shall cite an example of what happened in Bournemouth just across the water from me. The local authority gave planning permission for a huge cinema complex on the front, on land that it owned, which it then sold to a developer for a highly advantageous price. Anyone who has been fortunate enough to visit Bournemouth recently will have seen the hideous building.

Kevan Jones: It is good for the ratepayers.

Andrew Turner: Such action may or may not have been good for the ratepayers in that particular case, as allegations were made about who benefited from the granting of planning permission. However, I shall skate gently over that. It was a Liberal Democrat council at the time. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that it was a Tory council. At the time planning permission was granted, the council was controlled by the Liberal Democrats, but I did not rise to speak with the intention of throwing arrows in their direction.
 There can be serious conflicts of interests in licensing issues. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) shakes his head, but I shall cite an example. Recently, my local authority decided to re-ignite the flame of the Isle of Wight pop festivals of the early 1970s. It had power under the original Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971 to control pop festivals and large assemblies and decided to do so on land that was within its control. The fact that the land was recreation ground in the middle of Newport, surrounded by houses in a Conservative-held ward did not daunt it one little bit. 
 The local authority estimated that such action would cost £2,000, but found that it would be more like £20,000. The fact that it cost the council about £300,000 did not daunt it either. It applied to itself for a licence and, lo and behold, granted itself a licence. Only the fact—unfortunate for council tax payers—
 that few people attended that pop festival led to it not being a serious inconvenience to people in Newport. That local authorities have the opportunity to take such action under planning legislation is an error that should be corrected. It is entirely wrong for a local authority to be judge and jury in its own case. That is why I tabled the amendment that proposes that the central licensing authority should be the authority for the granting of premises licences, 
''where the applicant or owner of the premises is the licensing authority for the area in which the premises are situate''.
 I recognise that the central licensing authority need not be that authority, it could be the licensing justices as they are now constructed or another body. We will have the opportunity to discuss whether it should be the licensing justices when we reach amendment No. 177. However, the Minister should consider the matter when he decides whether the clause should be amended as he has proposed. 
 Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 would be redundant should the clause not stand part of the Bill. They are an attempt to tackle the term ''licensing authority'' in clause 6(3), which clearly includes the central licensing authority, when the provisions in that subsection are inappropriate to a central licensing authority. Clearly, it is not possible for the central licensing authority to consult the chief officer of police for the licensing authority's area, because its area is England and Wales and there is no chief officer of police for England and Wales. That is why, in amendment No. 109, I substituted 
''the Secretary of State for the Home Department''
 and 
''such persons as represent—chief officers of police . . . chief fire officers . . . holders of premises licences and holders of club . . . certificates''
 and that the authority should consult ''holders of personal licences'' before amending its licensing policy. 
 Those are the reasons why I tabled the amendments. I accept that they will fall should the clause not stand part of the Bill. However, I would like the Minister to comment particularly on the first of those three amendments.

Malcolm Moss: At the heart of this series of amendments and the clause stand part debate is whether the Government's intention—as set out in the White Paper initially and in the Bill before it was amended in the other place—is to deal with potential real and practical problems, the existence of which both the Minister and his team and my Opposition colleagues recognise. Paragraph 41 of the White Paper states:
''To enable licensing authorities and the police to check readily the validity of licences and the licensee's history they will probably need to support a national database''.
 I emphasise ''they''. The White Paper continues: 
''It may be possible to include on a single national database details of personal licences, premises licences, punishments and sanctions imposed, door supervisor registrations and Home Office guidance.''
 The Government were clear when the White Paper was being written that a central register where all such information was stored for ease of access was probably 
 needed—for the individual licensing authorities and also for the police. The question is whether that has been translated into the provisions in the Bill to a degree that provides a comfort zone. I have re-examined clause 9(6) and the wording is not sufficiently clear. It states: 
''The Secretary of State may arrange for the duties conferred on licensing authorities by this section to be discharged by means of one or more central registers''
 —why we need more than one, I do not know—but 
''kept by a person appointed pursuant to the arrangements.''
 If the Government said, ''We will remove the word 'may' and put in 'shall' '', the Opposition would feel that they intended to deal with the problem. 
 Last week, I spoke to someone from the LGA who was, at that point, still saying that it wanted a central register or authority. I understand there was subsequently a meeting involving the LGA. I recognise the difference between an authority issuing licences and a body keeping a central register. An authority may fear that the cost of operating such a system would get out of hand, especially if there were cross-checking throughout the country for personal licence holders applying in different local authority areas. 
 Looking at the practicalities, the chief officer of police for the area where a licence was originally granted is obliged to consider giving an objection notice to an application for an area outside of his jurisdiction. That could be 100 miles away. If a new application were made for a personal licence in Cornwall for someone who originally held one in Northumberland, for example, the onus of responsibility would be on the chief officer of police for that area. If the objection notice were served, the licensing authority in the original area should hold a hearing to consider the objection. I understand that that should be held regardless of the location of the new licensee, or the conditions under which they are living and operating. There may be a time gap between a person surrendering a licence in the first local authority area and thinking some two or three years later that he will become a licence holder again. 
 There are practical problems and there is merit in having a central register or database. But who should be responsible for that? The hon. Member for North Devon is attempting to tie that matter down with his amendment. I listened carefully to the remarks he made; he is on the right lines in questioning where in the Bill it is said that that will be done. How will it be done? Are we to sign off the Bill without knowing how such things, which are not yet in the guidance, shall be achieved?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend said that he would have got more comfort from the Minister if the wording of clause 9(6) had been changed from ''may to ''shall''. He may have got more comfort if the Government had taken serious steps to amend clause 4, rather than trying to delete it, to assure us that the register would be set up sensibly and that it would be subject to scrutiny by Parliament.

Malcolm Moss: My hon. Friend makes a good point. So far, the attitude of the Government to the debates and the successful amendments in the other place has been to dump on them from a great height; they are chucking them out without even considering the real basis for the argument why the amendments were tabled. Perhaps, the Government do not want to go down the road of setting up a wholly new quango, as the Minister said. Certainly, we would not be in favour of huge costs. We must be assured that things will happen and that somebody, or some Department, will be held responsible for setting things up and ensuring they work.
 If there were a central authority, which is the intention behind clause 4—originally the amendment in the other place—it would at least be identifiable, would be given a clear role and resources to fulfil that role and there would be one set of IT dealing with things. However, we are not sure about that and the Minister has not given us any assurance that the IT systems used by different local authorities would be able to talk to one another sensibly.

Kim Howells: That is a reasonable argument. At the moment, there is hardly a single system encompassing all local authority systems. Everybody is trying to achieve interoperability, but so far they have found it difficult to achieve. We cannot let that problem hold back the Bill. We may not be able to see a way of achieving interoperability in the immediate future, but we will work towards it and that is precisely why we need flexibility.

Malcolm Moss: I hear what the Minister says, but it is a weak argument. During the gestation of the legislation, going back to discussions prior to and since the White Paper, the issue has not been properly addressed—not even at this late hour. The Opposition believe that a central database is absolutely vital and that the LGA and the police share our view. We shall vote against the Government's amendment to leave out clause 4, because until we get any indication otherwise that is the only reassurance in the Bill that a central registering database will be taken seriously.

Kim Howells: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman will vote against the amendment as I am not sure that I understand the logic of his position.
 I shall first try to answer the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. The Government are in regular and detailed discussion with the LGA and the Association of London Government about transition. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as having a large number of applications, local authorities will receive a large number of licence fees. It should be noted that during transition the licensing authority will not have an enforcement role. The fee revenue would therefore be more than adequate to cover set-up costs and see it through a difficult period. We are confident that the licensing authorities can manage the transition process.

Mark Field: Does the Minister fully understand that the so-called enforcement role does not simply cover policing, but giving advice and support? The notion that the need for that will disappear during the transition period is fundamentally mistaken. Local
 authorities have an important role in giving general advice and support to business, but it is often assumed that enforcement is all about coming down hard on people. Local authorities use the carrot, as well as the stick, approach.

Kim Howells: Yes, indeed. I want to encourage that approach. As a Minister who was responsible for trading standards officers departments, I advocated that approach as it is the way to tackle many of the problems that arise.
 The hon. Member for North Devon made some important points about access to information. Questions of access, privacy and data sharing are part of the detailed discussions being held with various partners. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We must be clear about those questions and I certainly would not want a creep—if I can use that word—towards access being increasingly opened up to what might be very sensitive information. Some information may shade into information that is commercially confidential and that could cause difficulties. 
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight raised some interesting issues about who might know whom when decisions are made. All Members of Parliament will have come across some odd decisions, especially about planning. The situation is never perfect. We have one of the least corrupt planning regimes on the face of the earth and it has served us well. However, it could be refined in several ways, some of which the hon. Gentleman pointed out—at least, he suggested some directions that could be pursued. 
 I am sure that hon. Members will recall that the Bill replaces the rather vague ''fit and proper person'' test with a much more open and transparent criteria. In the vast majority of cases, the situation that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight describes should not arise. Local authorities can apply for public entertainment licences and that illustrates many of the tensions that he mentioned. 
 I assure the Committee that we have looked into this matter and we are confident that existing provisions governing the way in which local authorities discharge the functions vested in them ensure that where it is improper for an individual to be involved in a licensing decision, self-disqualification would take place. Therefore, there is no need to amend the Bill to ensure that, for example, where councillors have a financial interest in the outcome of a decision, they will not be party to any decision. 
 I have every confidence that local authorities will be able to carry out their many functions effectively and impartially and that existing standing orders governing issues of propriety offer effective safeguards. The system set out in the Bill will ensure that licensing decisions benefit from the participation of councillors with knowledge of the local area and from a joined-up approach that allows licensing to be seen in the wider context of other local authority responsibilities.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: I want to make some progress first. We will return to this matter when we discuss the role that MPs, MEPs and councillors play in notification and objections.
 Clause 9(6) is drafted as it is because the requirement to keep and maintain a register bites as soon as the provisions come into force and a central national register will not be available at that time. Therefore, the word ''shall'' is inappropriate in the context of that requirement. 
 In the current draft, ''may'' is a strong word. A provision should not be included in legislation if there is no intention to use the power that is being given. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested, the legislation has to be drafted to reflect a practical problem: the appropriate machinery must get into the national register, if I can use that expression. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the difficulties that might arise from a case. He said that the inquiry might be in Cornwall when the initial licence was granted in Northumberland. That is a good example. The expense could be just as great if the case involved Cornwall and Devon. It is true that the application for the renewal of a licence is made to the authority that issued the original licence. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that would be an administrative process. As the hon. Member for North Devon pointed out, the numbers involved are not huge by any standard, and in the few cases where a hearing is required, all the relevant details would be available to the police and the licensing authority as a result of the provisions in the Bill that require an identification of convictions. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked who would lead the database project. We are leading it—although I am not sure whether that gives him any confidence. We are leading an initial scoping phase and once we have a clear and detailed business case, we will be in a better position to determine ownership models and so forth. It would be wrong of us to pre-empt the results of those discussions. 
 I hope that those remarks answer at least some of the doubts and questions that have been raised. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 45, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 1, leave out ',or'.
 No. 6, in 
clause 3, page 3, line 2, leave out paragraph (i).—[Dr. Howells.]
 Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Central Licensing Authority

Joe Benton: I shall now put the question of whether clause 4 should stand part of the Bill.

Fraser Kemp: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. I wonder if you could advise us. Given that we discussed whether clause 4 should stand part of the Bill under clause 3, what is the position on the new clause 4?

Joe Benton: It is an existing clause and whether it should stand part of the Bill is being put to the Committee, as we have debated it with the previous group of amendments. It is now merely a question of putting the question formally. I repeat the question.
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5 - General duties of licensing authorities

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in
clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert 
 'to grant permission, in the form of a licence, to a person, business or organisation to provide— 
 (a) the sale by retail of alcohol, 
 (b) the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club, 
 (c) regulated entertainment as set out in Schedule 1, 
 (d) late night refreshment as set out in Schedule 2, 
 where it would otherwise be an offence without such a licence; and further to promote—'.

Joe Benton: With this we may discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 8. 
 Amendment No. 107, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 30, leave out from 'premises' to '; and' in line 31.
 Amendment No. 66, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 31, leave out 'and'.
 Amendment No. 65, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 32, after 'children', insert 'and other vulnerable persons'.
 Amendment No. 67, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert 
 'and 
 ( ) the protection of the quality of life of communities'.
 Amendment No. 68, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert 
 'and 
 ( ) the protection of the environment'.
 Amendment No. 69, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert 
 'and 
 ( ) the protection of public health'.
 Amendment No. 70, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert 
 'and 
 ( ) the control of alcohol sales at licensed premises'.
 Amendment No. 71, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert 
 'and 
 ( ) the regulation of licensed premises providing a leisure amenity for the general public'.
 Amendment No. 88, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert 
 'and 
 (c) the safeguarding of cultural activity.'
 Amendment No. 134, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert 
 'and 
 ( ) the protection of residential amenity'.
 Amendment No. 73, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert 
 'which shall in particular set out the specific reasons which the Secretary of State considers to justify the exclusion of children from free access to licensed premises.'.
 Amendment No. 74, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert 
 'which shall in particular set out the specific reasons which the Secretary of State considers justify the prevention of any licensing authority from restricting the number of licensed premises, regulating the type of licensed premises, or imposing a generalised closing time in any part of a town centre of other locality within the licensing area.'.
 Amendment No. 119, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 36, at end insert 
 'and 
 ( ) the encouragement of the development of social, cultural and sporting facilities for persons living and working in that area, or visitors to that area, in such a manner as is consistent with the licensing objectives.'.
 Amendment No. 79, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 20, at end insert— 
 '( ) In drawing up keeping under review or revising a licensing policy, a licensing authority must take into account the need to promote such live music, dancing and theatre as it considers to be for the wider cultural benefit of its local community.'.

Malcolm Moss: The key Opposition amendment in this group is No. 118, which would add to the list of licensing objectives. During our debate, we have discussed what activities should and should not be included in the scope of a licensing Act. That has exposed a fundamental flaw: during the translation of the proposal from the White Paper to the legal framework, the whole purpose of licensing seems to
 have been lost, with overdue attention being paid to what has been termed as the licensing objectives.
 The purpose of licensing in any activity or business is to give permission for something to occur that would otherwise not be permissible. Much has been said about the effects of the Bill as it stands, but little so far about its fundamental purpose. Few would disagree that the sale of alcohol should be regulated; the need to acquire a licence strengthens the effect and efficacy of the enforcement of that regulation. However, it is different to claim that the objective of the licence is to prevent crime and disorder, protect the amenity of the area and protect the public from harm, which is what the Bill sets out as its objective. The licence merely gives permission for alcohol to be sold and states the conditions under which it must be sold. The so-called licensing objectives that appear in clause 5 are much more duteous on those holding the licence—they should uphold them since knowingly contravening them can result in the removal of permission through the revocation of the licence. 
 It is questionable as to what activities should be licensed under the Bill. It is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but nowhere does it actively seek to promote the social life of the country. The main purpose of providing a licence is to give permission to do certain things and our amendment would make it clear that, in considering a licence, the promotion of social, cultural and sporting activity is as important as the promotion of public safety, nuisance issues and the prevention of crime and disorder. 
 Amendment No. 42, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, deals with amenity. Government amendment No. 8 would delete huge sections of clause 5(2)(c), which deal with amenity. It is important that we tease out from the Government why they are so much against amenity and in favour reintroducing the concept of nuisance to the Bill. The Secretary of State said in Parliament on 24 March 2003 that the Government did not intend to accept the amendment made in the other place to add the protection of amenity as an objective—that intention is clear from Government amendment No. 8. 
 The introduction of a licensing objective under which amenity generally may be considered can only constrain the ability to address public nuisance if the existing public nuisance objective is removed from the Bill. However, it is agreed in some quarters that that objective should remain. In fact, the term ''public nuisance'' may constrain the ability of licensing authorities to take into account all the potential adverse impacts that licensed premises may have, as it is a phrase that has been given a specific and relatively narrow meaning by the courts in the context of environmental protection. The term ''amenity'' does not have that disadvantage. It is wrong to suggest that amenity in planning terms solely concerns aesthetic and visual appearance. The word has been given a wide meaning by the courts in a planning context. In the case of Ellis v. Ruislip-Northwood UDC 1920, it was interpreted as 
''pleasant circumstances or features, advantages''.
 Under section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for example, planning legislation requires a local planning authority to have regard to the interests of amenity. Such provisions have never caused problems or difficulties of interpretation. Given what I said about amenity, will the Minister explain why the Government consider it necessary to remove from the Bill any reference to amenity, as amendment No. 8 would do? There is a place for amenity. Surely the Bill's objectives are to promote cultural and social activities. After all, most people drink in a social context when they go out to enjoy themselves. We recognise that that activity needs to be licensed, but surely we must accept that, if drinking alcohol is lawful, the objectives should encompass some definition of why people undertake such activities.

Jim Knight: Amendment No. 88 is a probing amendment. I have no intention of putting it to the vote. It follows from my intervention on the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading, when I suggested that a licensing objective should be the safeguarding of cultural activity. My thinking is not dissimilar to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. We must provide a little more balance within the objectives, such as safeguarding against disorder and promoting public safety, and child protection. It would be helpful to have an objective by which cultural life was safeguarded to ensure that we achieve that balance. It may provide some comfort for the representatives of the culture industry who have lobbied so hard on the Bill.
 A balance has been created in planning. When I was a member of a planning committee, we balanced the important regulation and control of land use with the need to stimulate and encourage economic development. Similarly, we want the licensing committee to balance the need to sustain and generate a good quality of life for citizens with the economic benefit that cultural life can generate. That economic benefit was well documented through the 1980s and 1990s, when John Myerscough carried out an excellent examination of the economic benefit of the arts in cities, such as Glasgow and Birmingham. Such work has continued and the Department fully supports it. We must balance that benefit with the need to protect against public disorder, to ensure public safety and protect children from harm.

Kevan Jones: Is not the problem the fact that the clause defines culture? Some people think that morris dancing and high art are culture, while others consider that Newcastle brown and football are part of the culture in the north-east.

Jim Knight: That was an interesting intervention. It may be up to individual licensing authorities to decide whether they want to protect Newcastle brown and football in the north-east. They may well want to protect such things—it is not for me to say. One of the benefits of the Bill is that it delegates such decisions to local communities, and they can judge which cultural activities to safeguard.
 I have an example of a balance that has been difficult to achieve within the existing licensing of 
 public entertainment by local authorities. I have already mentioned to the Committee that I used to be a member of Mendip district council, which is the licensing authority for the Glastonbury festival. That festival is probably the most important and significant cultural festival in Europe, especially for young people. It is of great significance to youth culture. However, huge public safety, disorder and public health problems are presented when a community of 200,000 people is temporarily created in a farmer's field in Somerset. 
 Despite the precedents—the Glastonbury festival has existed for some 25 years, after starting as the Pilton pop festival—a consistent problem is that the local community is understandably ambivalent about whether the festival should go ahead. Michael Eavis struggles to obtain licences because elements in the local authority care as lot about crime and disorder, public safety, the protection of children and so forth, but do not balance potential problems with the need to protect the cultural life of the nation by allowing the Glastonbury festival to go ahead. The negotiations continue. 
 In many ways, that example informs my reason for tabling the amendment. I wish to ensure that licensing committees balance the two concerns when they make their decisions. Glastonbury festival is an extreme example, but similar points could be made about the folk festivals in Weymouth and Swanage, both of which take place in my constituency. I am sure that we in the Committee are all united in wanting to encourage and enhance folk music and other such activities. 
 I would like the Minister to respond to my concerns and consider whether it would be appropriate to introduce an amendment on Report, because I will not press my amendment to a vote. The Secretary of State responded to my intervention on Second Reading by saying that she was worried that we would overload committees by giving them too much to think about, but it is reasonable to ask licensing committees to balance the objectives in the Bill with safeguarding the cultural life of their areas.

Nick Harvey: I would like to say a few words about Government amendment No. 8, but first I shall say something about amendment No. 118, which was moved by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. He usually argues the case for his amendments logically and sensibly, but on this occasion he has lost the plot. The distinction between functions and objectives is relatively straightforward. The function of the licensing authority is to push bits of paper around, but surely that is not its objective. We continually ask ourselves, ''Why are we doing this?'' and, ''Why do entertainments need to be licensed?'' The answer cannot be, ''Because we want to issue bits of paper''; it must be, ''We are doing this for the greater good''. I shall discuss what the objectives are, but amendment No. 118 has missed the target.
 On Government amendment No. 8, I regret that the Government wish to repudiate the amendment made 
 in the House of Lords, which strengthens this part of the Bill significantly, not least for the reasons described by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). We are asking the authorities to perform a balancing act, and if the objectives simply comprise the avoidance of four public perils, but do not counterbalance that with the promotion of anything positive, the entire function seems to be one of trying to avoid catastrophe, rather than promoting anything that is worth while or good. The notion of a balancing task in sub-paragraph (c), which was drafted by the Lords, is a good basis on which to work. 
 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire was correct in putting forward arguments about the fairly well established legal definition of public nuisance. The courts require high standards of proof for public nuisance, and what constitutes public nuisance is well explored and well trodden ground. The legal textbooks contain examples of such things as running a brothel, letting off fireworks and other exceptional acts of antisocial behaviour. 
 We are talking about extending pub opening into the early hours of the morning; I share that general goal, and I would sign up to it. The Government are correct in trying to end our outdated drinking hours. However, behaviour that would not constitute a public nuisance in the middle of the afternoon can be unpleasant for people living or sleeping in the close vicinity of a public house in the early hours of the morning. Cars coming and going, the opening and closing of car doors, the starting of engines and conversation in the street could be perfectly acceptable at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, but can be unpleasant for people at 3 o'clock in the morning. 
 None of those things comes anywhere near constituting the type of public nuisance established in legal precedent. The Government are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The measure suggested by the House of Lords would allow licensing authorities to exercise some common sense, and give them some discretion to consider whether the premises in question were located near housing, and so forth. 
 Without the critical concept of protecting amenity, which the Lords introduced, people will not even have the right to make representations under clause 19, because under subsection (6) they would be confined to making relevant representations 
''about the likely effect of the grant of the premises licence on the promotion of the licensing objectives''.
 The whole thing tracks back to the list of objectives that we are considering at the moment. The other place helpfully introduced a balancing act that gives the licensing authority plenty of scope to exercise sensible discretion, and also allows those who believe that they will suffer from other people's all-night drinking to have their say. 
 The principle of moving the decision making from the magistrates to the local authorities was designed precisely to invite a sensible considered analysis of representations on such issues by the committees. If we do not incorporate some concept of amenity, we would adversely narrow the scope of the discretion and the 
 task carried out by the licensing committees. I urge the Government to think again. Perhaps sub-paragraph (c) is not perfect and could be further polished, but I believe that it introduces something worth while. To throw it out and go back to the straightforward concept of public nuisance would be regrettable.

Andrew Turner: I am in sympathy with the case that the hon. Gentleman makes. Does he recall that on previous occasions the Minister suggested that matters of amenity were planning, not licensing, matters? Does he agree that it is all very well to talk about planning matters, but in many cases planning permission has already been given, on the assumption that the premises will close at 11 or 11.30 pm?

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point when he says that many of the premises will have been given planning permission many years—indeed, decades—ago. However, even if that were not the case, I would not believe that planning was a complete solution, for the reason I gave earlier: what may be perfectly reasonable at 3 o'clock in the afternoon may be completely unreasonable at 3 o'clock in the morning. I would not expect planning permission for a public house to be denied because of people opening and closing their car doors at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, but it might be reasonable, on the basis of protecting residents' amenity, for the public authorities to insist that it did not stay open, thus causing that noise, until 3 o'clock in the morning.

Mark Field: My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for North Devon are right to say that this is an important part of the Bill, not least because getting the licensing objectives right will have a knock-on effect. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that all the protections set out in clause 19 will be for naught if the particular subject areas do not fall within the confines of the licensing objectives.
 A stranger, seeing that my name had been attached to Government amendment No. 8, might think that there must be broad-based agreement between us on everything in the Bill. Of course that is not entirely so, because that amendment suggests reverting back to including public nuisance as one of the objectives. I have no particular concerns about that. However, in my view we should consider having a fifth objective—that of residential amenity. It is with that in mind that I favour re-instituting the concept of public nuisance. That is an important concept and should appear in the Bill. There was a long and fruitful debate on the subject in the other place, and the Lords tried their best to find a sensible compromise that would ensure that the need to balance various interests was brought to the fore. 
 I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said earlier. Also, we have been greatly helped by the Civic Trust and the Local Government Association, who helped to prepare briefs on our behalf. Some local authorities need to feel that they can take into account the cumulative negative impact of a high concentration of premises, and customers, on local communities. Local 
 authorities across the country are increasingly reporting problems of noise in the street. 
 As I mentioned on Second Reading, anyone who goes on to the streets of Soho in the early hours of Saturday or Sunday will see an enormous amount of antisocial behaviour, from urination in the street to drug taking and loud disorder. An underlying assumption that the Government make all too often in the Bill is that the areas under great stress are city centres with no residential population. As I have pointed out in Committee, Soho and Covent Garden have enormous residential communities, and there is little doubt that the same applies to the centres of such cities as Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle. 
 The interests of local residents need to be protected, as do the interests of local businesses. We should not think of this as an ''us or them'' issue. It is perhaps all too easy for local residents associations to be perceived as simply representing the interests of the residential population. I appreciate that there is a great danger that in tabling some of the amendments, Opposition Members run the risk of considering only one side of the argument. Business interests need to be maintained—certainly in central London, given the importance of the tourist trade, and there are long-standing business interests both in central London and beyond. There are family restaurants, bars and pubs that have been around for many decades, which I hope will be around for many decades to come. The biggest worry is that if we do not get the Bill right, at the next economic upturn many small family-run businesses will be bought up by the large chains, which will undermine the consumer choice that we all crave. 
 I am developing some very bad habits as a young new Member of Parliament. One of them, which I think I learned from the apostles of new Labour, is to look at focus groups. Over the past few months I have got in touch with a number of my local residents and their associations to find out about their views on the Licensing Bill as a whole, and this is an appropriate moment to put on the public record some of the concerns that they expressed. 
 One of the residents groups that I had contact with is in the Marylebone High Street ward, which is north of Oxford street and therefore just outside Soho and the main west end stress area. I received a substantial number of responses—about 60 or 70. A fair few—about 40 per cent.—were from residents who did not have many concerns about the idea of 24-hour licensing and the extension of licensing. It is therefore fair to say that the residential population do not by any means universally object to licensing regulations or say that they fail to take account of residential and other amenities. 
 I shall pass on a few brief comments from local resident associations throughout Westminster. As in any city centre, although a lot of attention is paid to places such as Soho and Covent Garden, there are also smaller stress areas, such as around Victoria station, in Bayswater, where Queensway is becoming an active commercial zone all day and all night, and in places such as Marylebone high street. 
 The Ashley Gardens Residents Association expressed great concern about the character of residential areas in large cities. It felt that in London there was a risk that ill-thought-through licensing legislation that took no account of residential amenity would in time result in areas being wholly altered, and there would be a lack of incentives for landlords to keep reasonable order. In fairness, it should be said that the Strand, Aldwych and Trafalgar Square Association, which represents predominantly licensees, was broadly supportive of the introduction of the Bill in its current unfettered form. However, the Leicester Square Association, which comprises a vibrant mix of residents and business people, was worried about the local atmosphere becoming that of a wild west frontier town, which it felt was already the case at weekends. That association does not want drinking hours to be extended.

Kevan Jones: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is adopting new Labour tactics. When he conducted his survey, did he point out to the residents in his constituency that under this Bill they will have a direct say in the granting of licences for the first time? That fact may have been withheld from them until now.

Mark Field: Although I am adopting new Labour tactics, it may be wishful thinking to imagine that I would be able to deliver on these matters—and even if I could, that might be taking new Labour tactics a step too far.
 The rhetoric of the Bill has been about devolving power to local groups—taking it away from what might be perceived as a distant magistrates court, and putting it in the hands of a local authority. However, the real proof of the pudding will be whether the approach is highly centralising. That theme has come up before; I have mentioned it on a number of occasions in this Committee, and on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. The real concern is that without protection to cover public nuisance and, more importantly, residential amenity, the notional powers and protections in the hands of local residents and small businesses will be somewhat illusory, because the operations with the largest and deepest pockets will be able to benefit most from a highly centralised system. That is one of the reasons why we are keen to encourage residential amenity. 
 The South East Bayswater Residents Association, which has done sterling work over a long period, and has briefed a number of Lords in the other place, highlighted a great concern about the proposed disadvantages of deregulation. What would happen if advantages were not apparent, and crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour continued, or even increased, under any new regime? The association expressed the concern that that could lead to major problems, against which there would be no protection, and the Bayswater area would become less attractive. The association said that there was a lack of infrastructure for policing and enforcement in the early hours of the morning, and also a lack of reliable public transport to allow people to leave the area. 
 The Soho Society made some important contributions to the debate in the other place, and I am grateful for all the help that a number of its key members have given me during the past nine months in understanding a little more about the Bill. It raised the issue of human rights with the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Comparisons have been drawn with cities such as New York and Paris, where regulations have been introduced to prevent over-concentration. In Paris, a new full liquor licence has not been granted since 1915, and New York has the 500 ft rule—in Paris it is called the 75 m rule—which specifies the minimum distance between each licensed premises. Again, residential amenity is an integral part of the thought process. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should adopt such a prescriptive approach, but what lies behind the approaches in those two important capital cities, which are comparable to London, is the sense that residential amenity needs to be protected. 
 One of the great things about the history of much of inner London is that the population in particular pockets has begun to rise for the first time in two centuries. As I said earlier, that applies in particular to the City of London, which needs a vibrant residential population to ensure that its population continues to rise. That population will include families, which inevitably need schools and all the associated infrastructure. That then becomes an important residential amenity that must be protected. 
 The Soho Society concluded by saying that it was determined that the power should remain in the hands of residents and the local council, and that to provide such protection, either there should be some sort of amendment relating to the protection of residential amenity, or the Government should accept the amendments from the other place. 
 I also spoke to the British Hospitality Association and the Tourism Alliance, which were, in the broadest sense, keen to support Second Reading. They feel that the tourism industry stands to gain much from the removal of some of the complexities of the law, but that facilities for tourists should be provided when and where they are needed—on demand, rather than dictated by central Government—or local government. There would be concerns, even under the new regime, about whether the needs and aspirations of the tourist market and its consumers would be ignored. Inevitably, there are lobby groups on both sides of the fence, which makes it all the more necessary to achieve a balance. 
 I shall end by quoting one or two of my local residents. I shall concentrate on those who are against the Bill and the licensing objectives, with the caveat that a significant minority of those whom I have contacted have said that they are in favour of the Bill. A couple who had lived in Marylebone for some 25 years said that they were very much opposed to 24-hour licensing; there were four pubs within 100 yards of the block of flats in which they lived, and in the summer the noise was a serious nuisance until 1 o'clock in the morning. 
 Another couple said: 
''Whilst the idea of a 24 hour city for commercial premises may appeal to some, this freedom is at odds with domestic leases that stipulate 'quiet enjoyment' of owners' homes''.
 They felt that restrictions should be imposed on the playing of music between, say, midnight and 8 am. Another local resident in Marylebone said: 
''At present the licensing laws are draconian, particularly compared to Europe, and need to be liberalised.''
 However, the resident did not agree that licensing functions should be taken from magistrates and given to local authorities or others, because they considered that the present system was objective and free from a perception of political bias. 
 Above all, it is evident that residential amenities are much in the forefront of people's minds. I am worried that the licensing objectives in the Bill are far too abstract and vague. They lay the whole process open to several legal challenges, which would serve no one, least of all local residents or hard-working people with small businesses who are determined to ensure that their businesses remain a success. 
 Given the numbers in Committee, the Government can railroad through their ideas. None the less, I hope that we can hold sway with the amendments that we have tabled and the Minister will come back on Report, having given some thought to achieving a balance. All of us want a system that will succeed. I apologise for arguing in some detail, but the clause is of key importance. Without achieving the right licensing objectives, we run the risk of having a system that will be beset by bureaucracy, red tape and perhaps by umpteen legal challenges. 
 It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire rightly said that amenity was misunderstood by the Secretary of State when it was dealt with on Second Reading. He referred to a case that took place in 1920, which was 83 years ago. We will have a blizzard of litigation if we do not get that aspect of the Bill right. I hope that the Minister will give considerable thought to our arguments.

Mark Hoban: I had not intended to speak to the amendments but I wish to follow on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and the hon. Member for North Durham. If we do not ensure that the objectives contain some reference to residential amenity or that broader issues are taken into account by licensing authorities when determining their policy and its implementation, residents will feel disfranchised from the process. We say that we are giving them a voice through the Bill, but they have a voice in a similar quasi-judicial process—planning. They often feel disfranchised from that process and consider that their objections have limited impact because of the nature of the planning process, the fact that policies are set out and that there is Government guidance. The views of local communities are often overridden by the quasi-judicial nature of that process.
 If there is no reference under the Bill to important issues for local communities, residents and businesses, I fear that their views will not be properly taken into 
 account when determining the statement of licensing policy, notwithstanding the guidance in the Government's draft document. If we are to ensure that licensing authorities have a broader perspective of their objectives under the Bill, we must tackle residential amenity. Without that, local communities will consider that they do not have a proper voice in forming policies, ensuring that they are properly implemented and that their local community is protected from excessive free licensing of pubs or other entertainment venues.

Andrew Turner: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, I had not intended to speak at length on the amendment, although I had intended to talk to my amendment No. 107. However, that disappears into insignificance when compared with Government amendment No. 8. As the hon. Member for North Devon said, that makes it impossible to object legitimately to the granting of many licences.
Dr. Howells indicated dissent.

Andrew Turner: The Minister shakes his head. He says that he sighs rather than snorts.

Kim Howells: That is total rubbish.

Andrew Turner: It is not rubbish. As the hon. Member for North Devon clearly said, a person can object only within the context of the licensing objectives, which are set out in the clause. If those objectives require only the prevention of public nuisance, its statutory definition—perhaps I should say, ''The court's judgment about what is a public nuisance''—comes into play. I hope the Minister will deal forensically with that assertion rather than simply say that it is rubbish.
 The hon. Member for North Devon outlined a serious, genuine objection and I will try to back that up with reference to paragraph 4.10 of the Minister's draft guidance, which says: 
''no Statement of Policy should override the right of any person to make representations on an application or seek a review of a licence or certificate where''
 —and I emphasise this— 
''provision has been made for them to do so in the Act''.
 My reading of that paragraph is that there is no provision in the Bill for anyone to make an objection, except within the context of the licensing objectives.

Kim Howells: This is called the Alcohol Licensing Bill, just in case the hon. Gentleman had forgotten; it is not about controlling society or running wider objectives for society.

Andrew Turner: I have not forgotten, but I did not know that there was any reference to alcohol in the title.
 The Bill is not to do with controlling society, but it is to do with the consequences of a much more liberal licensing regime on those who may suffer under it. I am not suggesting that the licensing regime should not be liberal; I am suggesting that local authorities should be required to pay proper attention to the consequences, among which are the noise and other effects of people gathering in the streets late at night. The Minister has accepted that, because he has 
 justified staggering closing hours—there not being a fixed closing time—by saying that that measure will reduce noise and disruption in the streets of our towns and cities between 11 and 12 o'clock and 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. 
 The Minister accepts that the Bill will have consequences and I am arguing about those. I do not dispute that there will be an alleviation of the consequences of everyone flooding out of pubs between 11 and 12 o'clock. However, there may be additional noise and some displacement in towns that do not have a significant problem at that time of night. 
 Many of my constituents contend that noise at 3 am is less acceptable than noise between 11 pm and midnight. I say that with absolute confidence because I live in the centre of Cowes and during Cowes week people are prepared to put up with noise between 2 and 3 am, but they would prefer not to put up with it at that time every week throughout the summer. 
 Such noise is acceptable during some special events and people are prepared to put up with it, but they do not want to be disturbed every night, especially on week day nights, particularly if they are in the serious business of providing public services, such as transport, postal or ferry services and have to be up in time to drive the first bus or operate the first ferry. People worry about the noise consequences and about the leakage of noise—not just noise caused on the premises, but that caused by people assembling outside. The draft guidance says that the local authority 
''statement of policy should make clear that licensing law is not a mechanism'',
 which the Minister has already asserted, 
''for the general control of anti-social behaviour by individuals once they are beyond the direct control of the individual, club or business holding the licence''.
 Of course, it is not meant to be such a mechanism, but my examples would be consequent on allowing many licences. Indeed, that is acknowledged further on, because the guidance refers to cumulative effect.

Kim Howells: Not in this clause.

Andrew Turner: No. The guidance also requires an objector to do something that to all intents and purposes is impossible: to lay an evidentiary base for the assertion that the addition of the premises in question would produce the cumulative effect claimed. How can one possibly prove what will happen in the future? It is simply impossible. It is possible to assert or offer evidence of what has happened on previous occasions, but it is utterly impossible to prove what will happen. The guidance is therefore wholly unreasonable.
 In case the Minister thinks that I am drifting away from the object of the amendments, I am concerned that the licensing objectives are drawn too narrowly. If subsection (2)(c) is amended in the way proposed by the Minister, people will find it even more difficult to object. In their amendments, my hon. Friends on the Front Bench proposed adding a range of things and I concede that the hon. Member for South Dorset also 
 made a good point: decisions should be a matter of balancing the cultural benefit. Cowes week has a cultural as well as a major economic benefit and that is the type of cultural activity that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting should be safeguarded. 
 My great concern, however, is the narrow definition of public nuisance, which is already covered by environmental protection legislation. As one of his reasons for the requirement to license, the Minister suggested that such legislation was retrospective rather than prospective, which I accept. That is a good reason why the licensing authorities should look ahead. The licensing authority needs to look beyond the narrowly drawn definition of public nuisance to the social amenity of those who live in the area that is likely to be significantly affected by any noise consequent upon the granting of licences.

Kim Howells: These are important amendments and we have had an interesting debate on them. I will deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for North Devon, but I am leapfrogging for a moment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster describes an accurate picture of what goes on in the streets of Soho and the other pressure points in his constituency, but such activities are the perverse effects of the current licensing laws. He is right to say that we must try to improve the licensing laws to tackle some of those problems, but the activities that he describes are a result of what is happening now. I hope that he remembers that. The new system is designed to reduce crime, disorder, antisocial behaviour and public nuisance.
 I will attempt a forensic description of ''public nuisance'', as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked me to do. It is also a problem that, if people believe that the area is like the wild west—as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said—things can only get worse. We are offering a chance to make things better. The situation at the moment is a direct product of our current laws. The anxieties are an argument for change, not for the status quo, which is why the hon. Gentleman's comments worry me. 
 The new system will give the hon. Gentleman's constituents a stronger voice than ever before. They will be able to call for a review of an existing licence, which could result in conditions being imposed on the licence that improve matters for the residents in the area. 
 I want to answer some of the questions before the knife falls. I do not have much time to do that because there are some big questions to address. Before I discuss the specifics of this group of amendments and the arguments outlined, especially by the hon. Members for North Devon and for Isle of Wight and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset in amendment No. 88, I should explain that the licensing objectives are not relevant simply for the licensing authority in carrying out its licensing functions. Individual applicants for premises licences and club premises certificates must explain the steps that they intend to take to promote them in the operating schedule that must accompany each application. As a consequence, the licensing objectives and their promotion must be capable of 
 being translated into conditions with which licensees must comply as well as of representing the overarching criteria against which the licensing authority must discharge its functions in the public interest. 
 It is impossible to expect licensees to promote the aspirational—and sometimes wonderful, as in the case of my hon. Friend's amendment No. 88—objectives proposed and I will try to explain why. Amendment No. 118 is one of those amendments, although I suspect that its intention may be to probe the Government about the workings of the new system. It sets out again one of the key elements of the new regime—namely, that a licensing authority will be expected to grant a licence in the absence of representations from responsible authorities or interested parties. I hope that I can reassure the Committee that the Bill is clear on this point: clause 19 states that in the absence of relevant representations the licensing authority must grant a licence, subject only to such conditions as are consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application. That is very important. 
 The amendment is therefore unnecessary. The granting of permissions is already a function of the licensing authorities. It would also create a licensing objective that it would be impossible for individual licensees to promote, however much they might like to be responsible for granting themselves licences. Although the licensing system provided by the Bill requires applicants to make assessments for themselves, the Government are not putting in place a system of self-regulation. 
 I now turn to Government amendment. No. 8 and those relating to it—amendments Nos. 66 and 42 are probably the most important of them. Amendment No. 8 would restore to the Bill the four licensing objectives it originally contained: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. 
 The hon. Member for North Devon raised several issues. The idea of the prevention of public nuisance was removed by an amendment in another place, and Government amendment No. 8 is designed to reverse that decision. We believe that replacing the idea of public nuisance with the idea of amenity significantly weakened the Bill, particularly in terms of the protection that it offers local residents in relation to the carrying on of licensable activities. That was not the intention of the amendment in another place, but it was its effect. 
 In the debate in another place, an impression was given by some contributors that ''public nuisance'' was a narrow concept that would not cover some of the problems that might be caused to residents living near licensed premises. That was because those contributors had regard to the narrow definition of ''nuisance'' in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That definition is misleading in the context of the Licensing Bill. The Bill does not define ''public nuisance'' and it therefore retains the wide meaning it has under common law, rather than that in the 1990 
 Act or any other statutory definition. The term ''public nuisance'' therefore retains the breadth and flexibility to take in all the concerns likely to arise from the operation of any premises conducting licensable activities, in terms of the impact of nuisance on people living or doing business nearby.

Mark Field: Can the Minister confirm that according to his understanding of the term ''public nuisance'', it covers everything in the House of Lords amendment—in other words, that in his view the amendment made in the other place is superfluous, and that ''public nuisance'' covers all the concerns set out in subsection (2)(c)?

Kim Howells: Yes indeed, but I will modify my agreement with the hon. Gentleman by saying that I do not expect licensees to have regard to the aesthetic qualities of surrounding buildings, for example. However, if behaviour is particularly rowdy, and antisocial behaviour can be proved to have been generated in the premises, what happens in licensed premises and in their vicinity may be said to have an effect on the aesthetics of the surrounding area, as the hon. Gentleman made clear. Apart from that, I would certainly agree with him. In fact, as I have argued, the provision actually weakens the power of the Bill in that respect.

Malcolm Moss: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: May I just make a tiny bit of progress first?
 Case law has developed on the subject, and will continue to develop in relation to the provisions in the Bill—I just wanted to make that point.

Malcolm Moss: Following on from the discussion between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster about public nuisance, may I point out that paragraph 6.61 of the draft guidance says:
''At any stage, following the grant of a premises licence, a responsible authority''—
 it includes in that definition a resident living in the vicinity of the premises— 
''. . . may ask the licensing the authority to review the licence''.
 So reviews could take place at any time, instead of every three years when the licence is renewable, as is the case at the moment. In the context of his stated aim of putting the phrase ''public nuisance'' back into subsection (2)(c), does the Minister expect a plethora of objections and cases for review to come before the licensing authority, as a result of the definition of ''public nuisance'' and the power, under the guidance, for people to make a complaint?

Kim Howells: No, because in my experience—which must be subjective, just as the hon. Gentleman's point or question is—most residents live in relative harmony with most licensed premises. There are exceptions, and we have to make sure that the Bill is framed so as to give residents the opportunity to ask for a review of the licence of any particular premises. There will probably be some objections. The right of residents to object, for the first time, to how licensed premises are run will be very welcome in respect of some licensed premises that I can think of, but will not name, in my
 constituency. Although there may well be some objections, it is impossible to predict how many there will be, or what the percentage will be in each constituency. Clearly, some residents will take the opportunity to ask for a hearing on the way in which a particular—
Mr. Moss rose—

Kim Howells: I have a lot to say on this subject—but go on; I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister did not answer the real question, which is whether he believes that there will be an increase. He ended up by saying that there would be some objections; however, if we get the wording in the Bill wrong, there may be an increase in the number. Obviously, that would force the licensees into court, and would involve legal costs and the rest of it. The Lords, through their amendment, were trying to achieve a balance. The local licensing authority had to balance residents' rights to object to a nuisance with the leisure amenity of the facility on a cultural and social basis.

Kim Howells: I understand and accept that argument. I am saying that no universal rule will be applied, and there will be places where objections can be made. Because of the way in which the new system will work, with a more relaxed regime for closing times, we will not see the same spikes or peaks of antisocial behaviour, so there will be fewer objections from local residents as a consequence. This is not a simple question, and what happens to clause 5 is very much tied to the overall objectives of the Bill, one of which is to reduce those spikes and problems that occur when everyone is thrown out into the street some time between 11 pm and midnight.
 The term ''public amenity'' is narrow and derived from planning law. It refers to the aesthetic and visual qualities of an area. It would not therefore cover the problems of noise, and many aspects of antisocial behaviour that we acknowledge and to which the operations of some premises could give rise. Planning law already provides local planning authorities with the tools that they need to address public amenity concerns about any premises, not just licensed premises. It is therefore essential that we restore the prevention of public nuisance to the licensing objectives in the Bill. 
 If the Committee accepts amendment No. 8, as I hope it will, amendment No. 134 would add a fifth licensing objective: the protection of residential amenity. The issue of amenity has arisen in the context of the debate on what has been called cumulative impact, or saturation; it concerns not the accumulation of licensed premises in and of itself, but the consequences that can sometimes flow from an accumulation of premises in a small and restricted area—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned this. For example, that can happen in Soho in London, and in other places throughout the country. 
 The licensing objectives chosen in the Bill are not random, but address the problems that decades of experience have shown—problems that can arise from 
 the co-existence in one area of a number of licensed premises. Of particular relevance here are the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. The choice of objectives derives from experience in decision making about licensing. They represent the reference against which the licensing authority will balance competing specific interests to reach a decision on an application that is in the overall public interest. 
 The Government are committed to ensuring that licensing authorities have the powers to address both crime and disorder and public nuisance arising from the carrying on of licensable activities. We have consulted widely with interested parties, including most recently with the LGA, the Association of London Government and the London boroughs of Westminster and Camden to determine whether the Bill's powers are sufficient for those purposes. As a result of that consultation, our policy was developed. We have incorporated in the draft guidance clear statements about the way in which a licensing authority's policy may be developed under the Bill where the cumulative effect of licensed premises impacts on the licensing objectives. We have already moved a long way with the principle of cumulative effect since the Bill was introduced—so far, indeed, that amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 74 are unnecessary, and I hope that they will be withdrawn. 
 I shall say a little about how the Bill already allows licensing authorities to take into account the cumulative impact of licensing on the amenity of an area. As I have already explained, the expression ''public nuisance'' has been chosen for the Bill as a well known concept that is flexible and capable of application in a huge range of circumstances. The licensing authority, informed by the responsible authorities—the experts—described in clause 14, needs to be in a position to determine what constitutes public nuisance in each individual case. In certain circumstances, lower level nuisance—such as the slamming of doors by patrons leaving a premises late at night, as described by the hon. Member for North Devon—has to be taken into account. Public nuisance is not only about acid house parties, raves, loud music or the selling of drugs on the street in Soho, to which the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred, although it might include those types of nuisance. 
 The Bill allows for a necessarily flexible approach. As is stated in the guidance that has been made available to hon. Members, 
''The 2003 Act requires licensing authorities and responsible authorities to make objective judgements about what constitutes nuisance and what is needed, in terms of conditions attached to premises licences and club premises certificates to prevent it. These will not be easy judgements as one man's enjoyable music is another man's irritating noise. It is therefore important that in applying the relevant objective tests, licensing authorities and responsible authorities focus on impacts of the licensable activities at the relevant premises on people living, working and sleeping in the vicinity that are unreasonable.''
 ''Amenity'' is a narrow issue, which more properly arises in the context of planning applications and applications for a change of use of premises. To introduce it into the licensing objectives would cause an unnecessary duplication of the planning process. However, to allay worries about cumulative impact, we have included the planning authority as a responsible authority. It will be free to make representations to the licensing authority about the cumulative impact of public nuisance or disorder from large numbers of similar premises, when that relates to the promotion of the licensing objective.

Andrew Turner: Paragraph 8.31 of the guidance states:
''In the context of preventing public nuisance, it is again essential that conditions are focused on measures within the direct control of the licence holder.''
 The planning authority can represent until it is blue in the face, but if the licensing authority does not have the power to take account of matters by attaching conditions that are not within the direct control of the licence holder, the planning authority's efforts will be in vain. That point has been made by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) to whom I referred in at our first sitting.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. I wish to stress what I have said consistently throughout our proceedings in the House and in Committee. Licensing law must not become a rerun of planning. We must remember that many businesses employ a lot of people, and may have to go through hell and high water to receive planning permission. Under the regime described by the hon. Gentleman, they would then have to go through it all again. When local residents decided that they could not oppose planning permission that way, they would try another way.
 The Bill is not designed to deal with the behaviour of patrons after they have long left the vicinity of the premises. It would be neither practicable nor reasonable to expect it to do so. Under the Bill, licensing objectives must be capable of translation into conditions that can reasonably be imposed on any licence holder. That is important. The conditions must be within his or her control, so that failure to comply can properly result in prosecution. It must be clear to the holder of the licence and the enforcement officers when the holder has transgressed the law. 
 It is easy to see how a licensee might encourage respectful behaviour as individuals are leaving his or her premises, even when they are getting into their nearby cars and driving away. A condition attached to his licence could therefore reasonably require him to do so. That could involve clear signs being displayed at exits. However, that influence will become quickly attenuated. When customers are beyond the licence holder's control, the onus for good conduct should fall squarely on the individual, and it is on the individual that enforcement efforts should then be focused. 
 In addition, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently published a White Paper that shows our intention to deal with antisocial behaviour by individuals in such circumstances. We are not ignoring the issue. The Licensing Bill must focus, 
 however, on the duties that we can place on licence holders and the actions that we can require them to take. A licence holder and his staff cannot exert absolute control over individuals after they have left the vicinity of the premises and may be hundreds of yards away. That is why the Home Secretary intends to equip the police with additional tools to control antisocial behaviour. 
 I ask the Committee to support Government amendment No. 8.

Malcolm Moss: We have had a good debate on the clause and the amendments associated with it. The Opposition amendments were intended to probe and find out exactly why the Government included some objectives and not others. The objectives fall under the general duties of the licensing authorities, not, as the Minister implied, under the licensee application, which must be accompanied by an operating schedule, which in turn must be directed to achieve the objectives as they are set out.
 We want to consider proactively the role of local licensing authorities in so far as they consider their licensing function, not just in a negative sense. We should not simply say, ''No, no, no'' on the various grounds set out in the objectives; we should say, ''These are cultural and social facilities that we wish to endorse and support''—for example, in a community with a growing tourist trade, and in other similar situations. There must be a balance between the interests of local residents, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned in speaking clearly to his own amendments, and those of the licensed business community. 
 I am not convinced by the Minister's assuring me that there will not be many more requests for reviews under the heading of public nuisance. I can foresee a huge number of vexatious applications for review. I know the guidance; I have read it carefully. It says that not more than one application in any 12-month period should be acceptable. I know that the Government are attempting to plug that loophole; nevertheless, people in the licensing trade may be faced with increased legal bills for defending themselves against local people who have objected to a pub being there from day one, and who will continue to do so. During local elections, when local councillors are coming up for election, there may be vexatious campaigns based on such objections. 
 We tabled our amendments in the interests of balance. We cannot accept the Government's amendment, which would delete the portion of subsection 2(c) that resulted from an amendment in another place. However, on the basis of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed, No. 8, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out from first 'of' to '; and' in line 31 and insert 'public nuisance'.—[Dr. Howells.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 179 - Guidance

Mark Field: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in
clause 179, page 99, leave out lines 5 to 19 and insert— 
 '( ) But the Secretary of State may not revise the licensing guidance unless a draft of the revised version has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
 Looking at the clock, I see that we have an enormous amount of time left to consider the clause and my probing amendment. Partly because the Government tabled an amendment on Report in the House of Lords— 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002], and the Order of the Committee [1 April and 3 April 2003], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clause 179 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.